Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
The votes
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO WERE IN CONGRESS IN 2002 WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO WHERE IN CONGRESS IN 2002 WHO VOTED AGAINST THE WAR:
Dennis Kucinich
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO DIDN'T VOTE EITHER WAY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T IN CONGRESS:
Mike Gravel
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO WERE IN CONGRESS IN 2007 WHO VOTED FOR KYL-LIEBERMAN:
Hillary Clinton
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO WERE IN CONGRESS IN 2007 WHO VOTED AGAINST KYL-LIEBERMAN:
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich (?)
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO WERE IN CONGRESS IN 2007 WHO DIDN'T VOTE EITHER WAY:
Barack Obama
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO DIDN'T VOTE EITHER WAY ON KYL-LIEBERMAN BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T IN CONGRESS:
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Bill Richardson
What distinguishes Hillary from other candidates on these votes is (1) Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman (a non-binding resolution); and (2) Hillary has not repudiated her vote for the Iraq war.
Note that Obama has not committed himself on either issue in congressional voting.
On the basis of these two issues, then, we're really talking about a four-person race (if you accept the premise that voting the wrong way on either of the aforementioned is a disqualification):
Barack Obama* (with an asterisk because of his failure to vote on Kyl-Leiberman)
Bill Richardson*(with an asterisk because he has never had to vote either way on either issue)
Mike Gravel* (with an asteriks because he has never had to vote either way on either issue)
and Dennis Kucinich (who has an entirely clean bill of health because he has vote correctly both times)
If you want to discuss various executive powers issues that the candidates have voted on, please list them by name so that we can look at how those votes stack up.
-
@ Dana Runs
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wouldn't worry about saintzak too much. Elsewhere he has compared Hillary Clinton to Britney Spears. Now he calls you a whore. I think there's mounting evidence that he may have a little hostility problem with women.
As for the whole cleavage thing, would this tactic even work if we lived in a world where a non-cleavage showing woman received the same treatment as a cleavage-showing one? I have a female friend who was literally told by her boss that part of the reason she was hired was that she is "his type." I have another female friend who was publicly groped by her boss in front of colleagues at a Christmas party. On the other hand, I know that I have an advantage over many of my female colleagues inasmuch as I can engage in "male bonding" with my male superiors while they can't. In a perfect world, the decision to show or not show cleavage would be a purely sartorial one. In the current world, I don't blame you for trying to level playing field a bit.
-
The money's on the dresser, doll. You can find your way way out.
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If your implication was not that she was whore, what was it? That she was the cleaning lady?
If you're going use personal slurs in your posts, at least have the courage to own up to them!
-
@ saintzak
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't feel compelled to defend Hillary Clinton's stands because I am not really a Hillary Clinton supporter (I have said this already many, many times). In this strand, I've generally confined myself to trying to get you (and another poster) to justify your sexist rhetoric. Rather than doing so, you have chosen to be shifty, dodgy and dishonest yourself. I've noticed that whenever someone tries to engage you on substance, you just yell "idiot" and change the subject.*
You have asked us to debate based on the issues, and when I went through the trouble of comparing the votes on the issues that were brought up, you deride that approach as "idiotic." Is it idiotic to bring up the actual voting records of the candidates (or their lack of a voting record)? This is just factual information. How can that be idiotic? Or is it idiotic simply because it is not broad sweeping statements full of invective and insult?
Obviously there is a difference between candidates who have voted on an issue and those that haven't. The reason that people who have been in congress are at a natural disadvantage in presidential races is that they often have a long trail of votes that can be used against them, either fairly or unfairly.
If, on the other hand, you have never had to vote on an issue, it has given you a "pass" on having to take a stand when it was inconvenient to do so.
*I notice that when Dana Runs tried to engage you on substantive issues vis-a-vis Hillary's foreign policy positions, you chose not to.
-
@ Serai1
[Read the article: "A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it is relevant inasmuch as the separation of church and state has been under attack by the same people that Romney is trying to ally himself with. The Romney pitch at this point is, "we may have our theological differences, but we both agree on which side to take in the culture war." Now, I don't believe for a moment that Romney actually shares many of the extremist views of those he has to court for political reasons. But I don't think we should ignore that these debates are actually going on within the Republican party, because it is a factor in how the next president will be chosen. I didn't get the impression that Michael Scherer was advocating the view that Romney is not a suitable candidate because he's a Mormon - he's just pointing out that this controversy actually exists. In a country where the separation of church and state were functioning properly, it really would be irrelevant. The fact that this is an issue should tell us something about the current state of the wall of separation between church and state.